Identifying, Interviewing,
and Intervening: Fathers
and the Illinois Child
Welfare System
Cheryl Smithgall
Jan DeCoursey
Elissa Gitlow
Duck-Hye Yang
Elizabeth Jarpe-Ratner
Jiffy Lansing
Robert Goerge
2009
Identifying, Interviewing,
and Intervening: Fathers
and the Illinois Child
Welfare System
Cheryl Smithgall
Jan DeCoursey
Elissa Gitlow
Duck-Hye Yang
Elizabeth Jarpe-Ratner
Jiffy Lansing
Robert Goerge
Recommended Citation
Smithgall, C., DeCoursey,
J., Gitlow, E., Yang, D. H.,
Jarpe-Ratner, E., Lansing,
J., and Goerge, R. (2009).
Identifying, Interviewing, and
Intervening: Fathers and the
Illinois Child Welfare System.
Chicago: Chapin Hall at the
University of Chicago
ISSN: 1097-3125
© 2009 Chapin Hall
at the University of Chicago
(Corrected, 2010)
Chapin Hall
at the University of Chicago
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
773-753-5900 (phone)
773-753-5940 (fax)
www.chapinhall.org
Acknowledgments
This work is part of a cooperative agreement between the Illinois Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. We appreciate the support—through funding and
the sharing of information and resources—that both the Children’s Bureau and DCFS have
provided to the evaluation team.
A significant part of this evaluation involved the analysis of information from databases
maintained by DCFS. We are grateful for the opportunity to work collaboratively with staff from
the DCFS Office of Information Technology and Services, without whose assistance this work
would not have been possible.
Since the launch of this demonstration project, many DCFS staff have gathered to examine
preliminary data and discuss policy and practice implications. We are grateful to all the DCFS
staff who have participated at various points in this process: Paul Langevin, Kelly VanOverbeke,
Valleria Forney-Williams, Douglas Washington, Hector Aviles, Brenda Owen, and Larry Small.
We are also thankful for the opportunity to engage the Integrated Assessment contract agency
directors in meaningful discussions about the program. Finally, we appreciate the opportunity to
draw on the expertise of Waldo Johnson, who served as a consultant to the evaluation team.
Because of confidentiality assurances, we cannot name the caseworkers who gave generously of
their time. Their willingness to share their experiences contributed immensely to our
understanding of the contexts and processes surrounding this program.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................1
Identifying and Interviewing Fathers as Part of the IA Process ..................................................................2
Circumstances and Problematic Behaviors among Fathers who were Interviewed ...................................2
Engagement, Case Planning, and Service Delivery......................................................................................4
Positive Child Outcomes Despite Challenges Facing Fathers .....................................................................4
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................5
Methods................................................................................................................................................................7
Statewide Administrative Data Systems .......................................................................................................7
Random Sample of IA Reports in Which Fathers Were Interviewed .........................................................8
Caseworker Interview Sample .....................................................................................................................10
Including Fathers in the Assessment Process ..................................................................................................12
Factors Associated with One, Both, or Neither Parent Being Interviewed...............................................16
Caseworkers Perceptions of Father Involvement .......................................................................................18
A Closer Look at Interviewed Fathers .............................................................................................................20
Individual and Case Characteristics.............................................................................................................20
Fathers’ Circumstances and Problematic Behaviors ..................................................................................21
Nature of Fathers’ Involvement ...................................................................................................................24
From Interviewing to Intervening ....................................................................................................................28
IA Screeners’ Assessments of Fathers’ Willingness to Engage in Services .............................................28
Alignment between Assessed Needs and Service Plans ............................................................................30
Caseworkers’ Experiences with Fathers and Services ...............................................................................31
From Reaching Fathers to Reunifying Children and Families .......................................................................34
Reunification Is Higher among Children whose Fathers Were Interviewed ............................................34
Assessment Report Prognosis for Reunification Often Leaves Fathers Out.............................................36
Is There a Systemic Bias toward Reunifying the Child with the Mother?................................................36
Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................38
References..........................................................................................................................................................41
Appendix A: Factors Associated with Interviewing Neither, One or Both Parents......................................43
Appendix B: Comparison of IA and SP Recommendations...........................................................................46
Appendix C: Survival Analysis of Reunification............................................................................................49
List of Figures
Figure 1. Completion of IA interviews with Fathers, 2005–2008..................................................................13
Figure 2. Annual Interview Completion Rates with Biological Parents.......................................................14
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier Survival Curves, by Completion of Parent Interviews ..........................................35
List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of Interviewed Caseworkers....................................................................................10
Table 2. Regional Variation in Interview Completion with Parents (2007–2008) ......................................15
Table 3. Characteristics of Cases Grouped by Completion of Parent Interviews ........................................17
Table 4. Nature of Involvement and Residency Status of Interviewed Fathers ...........................................26
Table 5: Comparison of Recommendations for Fathers in the IA and the Service Plan (SP)......................31
Table 6. Factors Associated with Interviewing Neither, One, or Both Parents............................................44
Table 7. Comparing Recommendations Made for Fathers in IA Reports and Service Plans (SP) ..............46
Table 8. Survival Analysis of Reunification by Completion of Parent IA interviews.................................49
Executive Summary
In recognition of the need for comprehensive family assessments, and in response to the concerns raised
by the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), the Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS) developed the Integrated Assessment (IA) program. The IA program partners child
welfare caseworkers with licensed clinicians, or “screeners” to provide better information about the
functioning of children entering foster care and about child and family strengths, support systems, and
service needs. Consistent with other DCFS efforts to engage biological parents and specifically fathers,
IA screeners and caseworkers were strongly encouraged to include fathers—resident or nonresident—in
the IA process.
In this study, we examine the extent to which fathers—stepfathers, putative fathers, legal fathers,
adoptive fathers, or biological fathers—were interviewed as a part of the IA process and the factors
associated with fathers being interviewed. Drawing on a subsample of reports in which fathers were
interviewed, we provide rich descriptions of the complex circumstances and family roles of fathers, and
we examine the extent to which case service plans reflect the assessment recommendations and fathers’
circumstances. To further inform the quantitative findings, we draw on semi-structured interviews with
caseworkers, in which they discuss their experiences in engaging or working with fathers. Finally, we
examine how parents’ participation in the IA interviews is associated with higher rates of reunification.
Findings from this study point to the following implications for ongoing efforts by the child welfare
system to engage fathers and effectively deliver or arrange services that address fathers’ needs and
improve child and family well-being:
•
It is clear that a differentiated approach to engaging fathers is needed, as well as an array of
services that best meets their particular circumstances.
•
Efforts to draw on potential resource/positively involved fathers’ extended resource networks
and to support their ongoing involvement in their children’s lives may have significant payoff.
•
Although many of the negatively involved resident fathers had some assets, such as their role in
securing stable housing for the family, many of them did not understand or acknowledge the
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
1
impact of their behaviors on their child or the rest of the family. These fathers may be more
difficult to engage in services and reunification efforts. When considering how to engage
fathers who are seen as a negative influence in the family and on reunification efforts,
caseworkers must be attuned to and equipped to address the dynamics of the entire family and
the potential resistance they may encounter.
•
Perhaps reflecting fathers’ contribution to the overall resources available for children, children
were significantly more likely to be reunified when both parents were interviewed as part of the
IA than when only one or neither parent was interviewed.
•
The importance of engaging fathers early in the assessment process cannot be understated;
however, sustaining the engagement of fathers through services and interventions warrants
further attention.
Identifying and Interviewing Fathers as Part of the IA Process
Of over 9,000 IA cases completed between 2005 and 2008, the largest proportion included interviews
with both the mother and father; in relatively few cases, a father was interviewed without a mother
being interviewed. Combining those two groups, a father was interviewed in 45 percent of the cases,
with the trend over time revealing increases from 40.5 percent in 2005 to 55.4 percent in 2008. This
trend was driven for the most part by increases in the percentage of cases in which both parents were
interviewed.
Clearly, whether a father has been identified on a given case will impact the extent to which the
interview can be completed, and in slightly more than one-third of all IA cases, the father of the child
was not identified at the time the IA screener was involved. Where a parent was identified, there was
significant variation across regions in the extent to which fathers and mothers are interviewed, with
percentages ranging from 58 to 80 percent for fathers and 69 to 93 percent for mothers. Age, race, type
of placement, prior placements, and geographic region were all significantly associated with whether
one, both, or neither parent was interviewed.
Circumstances and Problematic Behaviors among Fathers who were
Interviewed
The information in the IA reports provides a rich description of the ecology of fathers interviewed in
the IA process, covering such topics as housing, education, employment, finances, informal supports,
domestic violence, substance use, and criminal behavior. A randomly selected subsample of cases was
reviewed in greater detail, yielding the following findings:
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
2
•
For over half of the cases, the father reported or was observed to have a stable and adequate
residence. In just under one-fifth of the cases, the father was incarcerated at the time custody
was taken. Cohabitation with adults other than a mother or paramour was noted for just over a
third of the fathers interviewed.
•
Slightly fewer than half of these fathers dropped out before completing high school, although
half of them later obtained their GED. Among the half who completed high school, some did
go on to attend college or trade school, but few had a postsecondary degree.
•
Half of the fathers were employed at the time of the assessment. Aside from their current
employment status, over a third of the fathers interviewed described a history of unstable and
sporadic employment, with brief employment periods and/or repeated job loss, frequently due
to periods of incarceration.
•
Finances were clearly strained for the vast majority of the fathers who were not working. Most
unemployed fathers relied heavily on family support for money and/or housing, rather than
public benefit programs or other forms of financial assistance.
•
The overwhelming majority of fathers interviewed indicated they had informal supports on
which they could rely, as needed. Those supports were frequently immediate or extended
family networks—sometimes their own, sometimes their spouse’s or partner’s—and the nature
of the support included housing, childcare, and financial assistance as well as emotional
support.
•
Domestic violence was a factor contributing to the child’s removal from the home in
approximately 10 percent of cases. Furthermore, the screeners noted domestic violence as a
concern in more than half of the cases where fathers were interviewed.
•
More than half of the fathers interviewed had a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse, and a
small group of fathers acknowledged an existing problem with substance abuse. Another onefourth of the sample denied an existing problem with illegal substances, but other information
from the IA indicated that there were drug- or alcohol-related problems.
•
The vast majority of the fathers who were interviewed for the IA admitted to or had
documented evidence of having a criminal background. More than half of those fathers had
committed violent acts, such as aggravated sexual assault, attempted murder, and weapons
offenses. More than two-thirds of fathers with histories of substance abuse had experienced an
arrest or conviction for a crime related to illegal drugs or alcohol abuse. More than one-third of
the fathers had spent some time in prison.
Both resident and nonresident fathers were interviewed for these IA reports. While nearly all of the
nonresident fathers were described as being positively involved or a potential resource for the child, the
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
3
same was not true of all resident fathers. Fathers whose involvement or interactions were negative
displayed behaviors that were perceived to be harmful to the child. Many of the circumstances and
behaviors described above corresponded to whether the fathers’ involvement with his child was
characterized as positive or negative.
Engagement, Case Planning, and Service Delivery
A prominent theme in the review of assessment reports was the screeners’ notation that the father was
willing to engage in services. Screeners occasionally included comments regarding their insights into or
acknowledgement of the fathers’ problems.
Although most caseworkers articulated an understanding of the connection between assessment
activities and the development of service plans, the information covered in the assessments and the
recommendations made in either the IA reports or the service plans were not perfectly aligned.
Caseworkers described working with many fathers who not only present with problematic behaviors but
also face unemployment or financial strain. These findings raise questions about the logistics of
arranging for participation in multiple services and consistently engaging fathers for the duration of
those services. The fact that multiple services are being simultaneously recommended for an individual
father also raises questions about coordination across providers and whether there is any evidence on
service effectiveness to guide the order in which these services are put in place.
Positive Child Outcomes Despite Challenges Facing Fathers
Despite some fathers having problematic behaviors, a number of workers identified fathers who were
active participants in services, and in such cases, the workers spoke of how involved fathers are a
positive resource for the children or family. Perhaps reflecting fathers’ contribution to the overall
resources available for children, an analysis of the over 9,000 completed IA cases indicates that when
both parents were interviewed as part of the IA, children were significantly more likely to be reunified
than when only one or neither parent was interviewed.
Several caseworkers perceived a systemic bias toward reunifying the child with the mother, also noting
some challenges—such as having sufficient space—that may thwart fathers even when they complete
the recommended services. However, beyond noted changes in behavior or attitudes that may have
contributed to the initial determination of risk, caseworkers’ statements indicate that the willingness to
participate in and complete services is the driving factor in assessing the prospects for reunification.
This may tie in, then, to the previous finding suggesting an association between willingness to engage
in the IA interview and willingness to participate in services, creating the sense that while not all fathers
engage with workers and services, those that do have better prospects for reunification.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
4
Introduction
Historically, the child welfare system has directed more of its resources to working with and providing
services to mothers than to fathers (Franck, 2001; Hornsby, 2002; Sonenstein, Malm, & Billing, 2002).
While the fact that mothers more often tend to be the custodial parent may influence the appropriation
of resources, many studies have highlighted other circumstances or reasons which lead some
caseworkers and service providers to direct available resources toward women (Franck, 2001; Greene
& Anderson Moore, 2000; Malm, Murray, & Geen, 2006; O’Donnell, Johnson, Easley D’Aunno, &
Thornton, 2005; O’Hagan, 1997). The attitudes and behaviors of mothers, caseworkers, and service
providers may play a role in sustaining a differential focus on mothers.
Offering further evidence against the theory that men are often absent from high-risk families,
Bellamy’s (2009) recent work with a nationally representative dataset indicates that the majority of
families involved with child welfare have male relative involvement in their lives, and that these adult
males are important targets for services. That being said, evidence continues to point to a need for child
welfare workers to improve their efforts to engage fathers. Findings from the Illinois 2003 Child and
Family Services Review (CFSR) cited the lack of contact with and engagement of fathers as a key
concern. Specifically, reviewers noted insufficient face-to-face contact between caseworkers and
fathers and a lack of involvement of fathers in case planning and service assessments.
In recognition of the need for comprehensive family assessments, and in response to the concerns raised
by the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), the Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS) developed the Integrated Assessment (IA) program. The IA program partners child
welfare caseworkers with licensed clinicians to provide better information about the functioning of
children entering foster care and about child and family strengths, support systems, and service needs.
The information-gathering activities and the collaborative process between the caseworker and IA
screener are intended to produce better-quality child and family assessments, which in turn facilitate the
development of better service plans and engagement in appropriate interventions. Alongside other
DCFS efforts to engage biological parents and specifically fathers, IA screeners and caseworkers were
strongly encouraged to include fathers—resident or nonresident—in the IA process.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
5
In this study, we examine the extent to which fathers were interviewed as a part of the IA process and
the factors associated with fathers being interviewed. The interviews with fathers and other family
members, along with other case documents and assessments, provide the basis for comprehensive
reports that caseworkers and IA screeners produce collaboratively. Through a systematic review of a
random sample of these reports, we are able to provide rich descriptions of the complex circumstances
and family roles of fathers. We also examine the extent to which case service plans reflect the
assessment recommendations and fathers’ circumstances. To further inform the quantitative findings,
we draw on semi-structured interviews with caseworkers, in which they discuss their experiences in
engaging or working with fathers. Finally, we examine how parents’ participation in the IA interviews
is associated with higher rates of reunification. In the conclusions, we discuss the implications of this
work for ongoing efforts to engage fathers and to effectively target services to fathers.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
6
Methods
This study utilizes a mixed-methods approach, drawing on several administrative databases maintained
by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services as well as in-depth, semi-structured
interviews with a random sample of caseworkers and qualitative coding of a sample of IA reports
extracted from one of the administrative databases. The databases and sampling procedures are
described in greater detail in this section. Approvals for conducting this research were obtained from
both the University of Chicago Institutional Review Board and the DCFS Institutional Review Board.
Statewide Administrative Data Systems
In conducting this study, Chapin Hall staff worked with staff from the DCFS Office of Information
Technology Services to extract and analyze relevant data from several statewide databases maintained
by DCFS.
When the IA program was launched, DCFS constructed an administrative database for the purposes of
tracking the assignment of cases, the completion and timing of interviews, and other benchmark steps in
the IA process. These data are entered and maintained by the intake coordinators and used to monitor
workloads and indicators of program functioning. This evaluation drew on data from over 9,000 IA
cases completed between 2005 and March of 2009 to assess the inclusion of fathers in the initial
interview process, and to identify a sample of cases for more detailed record review.1
Chapin Hall also worked with DCFS to extract data from the Child and Youth Centered Information
System (CYCIS), which contains case opening, child demographics, and placement records. The
evaluation team linked these records to information in the IA database mentioned above.
DCFS also facilitated access to records in the Illinois Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information
System (SACWIS). SACWIS is a case management computer application that contains information
1
Cases are tracked at the child level. The roughly 9,000 IA cases represent approximately 6,000 families.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
7
from the initial phone call of suspected abuse or neglect and throughout the life of a case, including
copies of the final IA reports and case service plans.
Random Sample of IA Reports in Which Fathers Were Interviewed
Information about fathers who participate in the Integrated Assessment was gathered through a review
of a randomly selected subsample of 49 Integrated Assessment reports for cases where temporary
custody was awarded between July 2007 and October 2008 and a father was identified and
interviewed.2 The total sample included interviews with 53 fathers (i.e., a few cases included
interviews with more than one father). Approximately one-fifth of the cases had multiple fathers listed
on the case and referenced in the IA report, but the caseworker and screener only interviewed one father
as part of the IA.
The IA database was used to draw the sample and then IA reports and service plans were pulled from
SACWIS. The IA report is structured so that separate sections are dedicated to each parent and child in
the family. The domains of information included in each of these sections are as follows:
Parent Domains (reported separately for mothers and fathers):













Screener impressions of participant physical, intellectual, and emotional well-being
Parent Personal History
Education and Cognitive Functioning
Criminal Behavior and Background
Work History
Social/Romantic Relationships
Current Living Situation
Substance Use
Interests, Hobbies, and Talents
Support Systems
Parenting Abilities
Medical/Developmental Condition
Mental/Emotional Health
2
Although the original sample drawn included 50 cases, a review of the case records revealed that for one case
the father was not interviewed as part of the Integrated Assessment.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
8
Child Domains:








Developmental and Grade Level
Medical/Developmental Condition
Mental/Emotional Health
Child’s Interaction with Caretaker/Paramour
Child’s Fear of Caretaker
Behavioral Problems that Child May Be Exhibiting
Child’s Support System
Child’s Adjustment to Placement
Family Functioning Domains:







History of Abuse/Neglect or Other History of Child Welfare Services in the Family
Family’s Financial Stability
Environmental Conditions of the Home
Community/Neighborhood Environment
Domestic Violence
Special Treatment Approaches Related to Racial, Ethnic, or Cultural Considerations
Family Strengths/Resources
In the process of coding IA reports, analysts captured any information about fathers that was presented
in any domain of the report. (For a copy of the complete report template, see Smithgall et al., 2009,
Appendix A). Incorporating all participant perspectives, including the screener’s, supports a more
nuanced analysis of father involvement. For the IA reports, qualitative analysis was conducted using
grounded theory with the assistance of the qualitative software package, Atlas.TI.
Analyses also included a comparison of the extent to which recommendations made in the integrated
assessment (IA) were incorporated into the service plan (SP) for these randomly selected cases. All
recommendations and service plan items were excerpted from the IA and SP documents and
categorized by recommendation type, such as substance abuse evaluation, individual therapy, job
training, parenting classes, etc. Each recommendation type was then compared to determine whether
the IA recommendation matched the SP, whether the recommendation was included in the IA but
missing from the SP, or whether it was not included in the IA but added to the SP.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
9
Caseworker Interview Sample
The IA database was used to identify all caseworkers who had conducted assessments in collaboration
with an IA screener for at least two families in a 6-month period during 2008. From this set of 130
workers, approximately 35 were randomly sampled and stratified by region so as to ensure statewide
representation. Between March and July of 2009, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were completed
with 22 caseworkers. The primary reason for not completing all 35 interviews was an inability to
establish contact within the study timeframe, a process that was impeded by state budget crises
resulting in reportedly higher workloads and temporary program disruptions in July, 2009. With
respect to demographic characteristics, no significant differences were found between those who did
and did not participate in the interviews.
The final group of interview participants, which included bilingual caseworkers, represented all regions
of the state and both public and private child welfare agencies (see Table 1). By virtue of the selection
criteria, even those workers with less than a year of experience had completed assessments with IA
screeners for at least two families, and some had completed as many as five in just that year. Several
more experienced workers completed as many as 30-50 assessments over time and worked with several
different IA screeners.
Table 1. Characteristics of Interviewed Caseworkers
Region
Central
Cook
Northern
Southern
N
7
6
5
4
%
13
9
59.1
40.9
6
7
9
27.3
31.8
40.9
10
4
8
45.5
18.2
36.4
31.8
27.3
22.7
18.2
Agency
DCFS
POS (private)
Length of time with agency
0–1 year
1–4 years
4+ years
Education
Bachelor’s degree
Currently enrolled in Master’s program
Master’s degree
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
10
The primary focus of the semi-structured interviews with caseworkers was to gather information about
their experiences and perceptions of the integrated assessment process. Because one intent of this
evaluation was to assess the engagement and inclusion of fathers, the interviewers specifically asked
caseworkers to speak about their experiences working with fathers and to explain if and how fathers
were involved in completing the integrated assessments and any recommended services. All completed
interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using Atlas.TI software.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
11
Including Fathers in the
Assessment Process
The Illinois IA process streamlines the collection of important family information within 45 days after a
child enters DCFS care. The process was designed to provide casework staff with front-end assistance
for coordinating information gathered through health evaluations, collaborative comprehensive record
review, and interviews with the child and his or her family members, guardian, and substitute
caregivers.
The significance of timing in connecting with fathers is grounded in research that shows that
caseworkers are more successful in engaging nonresident fathers if they are able to identify, locate, and
contact the nonresident fathers within 30 days after case opening (Malm et al., 2006).
When the IA program was launched, DCFS established a database to track the process of completing
the various interviews and steps of the IA process, including whether and when interviews were
completed with all parents, biological and otherwise, resident and nonresident. We used these data to
look at the proportion of cases in which parents—and specifically fathers—are interviewed as part of
the IA process (see Figure 1).
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
12
Figure 1. Completion of IA interviews with Fathers, 2005–2008
18%
40%
37%
5%
Both parents interviewed
Father only
Mother only
Neither parent interviewed
As Figure 1 shows, both the mother and father are interviewed in the largest proportion of cases; in
relatively few cases, a father is interviewed without a mother being interviewed. Combining those two
groups, a father was interviewed in 45 percent of the IA cases over the 3-year time period. Analysis of
annual rates of interview completion reveals a positive trend wherein the total percentage of cases in
which a father has been interviewed has increased from 40.5 percent in 2005 to 55.4 percent in 2008,
driven for the most part by increases in the percentage of cases where both parents were interviewed
(see Figure 2).
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
13
Figure 2. Annual Interview Completion Rates with Biological Parents
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Both parents
Father only
Mother only
Neither
One reason that fathers are not interviewed as part of the IA process may be that they are not identified.
In slightly more than one-third of the IA cases completed between 2005 and 2008 (N = 9,909), the
father of the child was not identified at the time the IA screener was involved. Previous research has
revealed several reasons why mothers and relatives do not identify nonresident fathers, including
concerns about the status of or imposition of child support payments, undocumented immigrant status,
outstanding arrest warrants, and domestic violence (Curran, 2003; Sonenstein et al., 2002). Despite
circumstances that might hamper efforts to identify fathers, several of the caseworkers either spoke of
trainings they attended regarding identifying and locating fathers, or they described in detail the lengths
they went to in seeking out and contacting fathers.
I remember… the Fatherhood Initiative and learning how to use the Putative Father Registry to
make sure we were exhausting all options. We were starting to get trained on diligent search and
Putative Father Registry at that time to make sure we were really looking for the father and not just
asking the mother and her saying, “I don’t know,” or, “I’m not gonna tell you,” and dropping it.
[Caseworker #37]
The maternal grandmother, she didn’t know who he was, and we asked her about if she could
contact his family. We didn’t have an address or anything—if she had any contact information
going back to the neighborhood, and she was able to get phone numbers and things like that, and
we were able to communicate with him on that level as far as getting some information from him,
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
14
and like I say, it ended up going to court, and…at the point when I transferred the case, they were at
the process of doing the paternity test. [Caseworker #34]
I contacted them. I found—by mom’s interview I got the information of who they were and the last
known address that they had. I searched Public Aid, found both of them, sent them a letter telling
them that [their child] was in foster care and I needed to meet with them to discuss the situation and
gather information about them for the best interests of their child, so then they showed up.
[Caseworker #22]
Clearly, whether a parent has been identified on a given case will impact the extent to which the
interview can be completed, particularly within the timeframe of the IA.3 In just under 4 percent of all
IA cases, neither a mother nor a father was identified.4 Taking into account whether an individual in a
given role has been identified, we see variation in interview completion percentages not only by role
but also by region. Where a father has been identified for a family case, interview completion
percentages with those fathers range from 58 to 80 percent, compared to interview completion
percentages of 69 to 93 percent among mothers (see Table 2).
Table 2. Regional Variation in Interview Completion with Parents (2007–2008)
Mothers
Region
Northern
Central
Southern
Cook
Sub-region
Rockford
Aurora
Peoria
Springfield
Champaign
East St. Louis
Marion
Cook North
Cook Central
Cook South
Fathers*
Number
Identified
Percent
Completed
Number
Identified
Percent
Completed
356
86.8
257
70.0
746
75.6
489
58.1
656
87.8
584
68.7
358
87.7
316
65.5
799
92.0
739
67.7
468
83.5
306
69.9
447
92.8
331
80.4
306
69.3
166
62.7
364
71.4
230
63.0
699
72.2
375
64.0
*The data for fathers include all types: stepfathers, putative fathers, legal fathers, adoptive fathers, and biological fathers.
Similarly, numbers and rates of mothers include stepmothers, adoptive mothers, and biological mothers.
3
According to the IA model, all interviews are to be completed within 20 days after the child is placed in protective custody.
Analyses of data in the IA database indicate that the average length of time to completion of the last interview is 27.59 days.
4
An example of the type of case in which this might occur would be a disrupted subsidized guardianship case in which neither
parent is involved and the child’s caregiver at the time of the current petition for temporary custody is a relative who was
granted guardianship in a prior case.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
15
Factors Associated with One, Both, or Neither Parent Being Interviewed
Table 3 provides descriptive characteristics of the children and cases, grouped by whether IA interviews
were completed with one, both, or neither parent. Among cases where the mother and father are both
interviewed, a greater percentage of children are younger than age 6, a greater percentage of children
are white, a smaller percentage of children have a prior foster care placement, a slightly higher
percentage of children are initially placed with a relative, and there are fewer cases from Cook County.
Among cases where only the father was interviewed, a greater percentage of children are over age 13,
the percentage of children who are white is still high—but not as high as cases in which both parents
are interviewed, and initial placement type and regional distribution are more similar to cases where
only the mother was interviewed.
When all of the child and case characteristics were included in a multinomial model, age, race, region,
and type of initial placement significantly predict whether neither parent, only the mother, only the
father, or both parents were interviewed in the IA process (see Appendix A for full results of the
model), confirming not only the need to control for regional variation but also for case characteristics in
assessing outcomes that may be associated with parent interview completion. We return to this issue in
the last section of this report.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
16
Table 3. Characteristics of Cases Grouped by Completion of Parent Interviews
Both parents
interviewed
Age
0
1 to 5
6 to 13
14 to 20
Race/Ethnicity
African American
White
Hispanic
Other
Allegations
Physical/Emotional Abuse
Sexual Abuse
Substance-Exposed Infants
No Prior Indicated
Allegation Identified
Neglect
1st Placement
Nonrelative Foster care
Residential
Juvenile Detention,
Runaway, or
Hospitalization
Independent, All Other
Relative Care
Region Incident Occurred
Northern
Central
Southern
Cook
Prior Entry
Indicator of Previous Entry
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
Father only
Mother only
(N=3,808)
N
%
(N=515)
N
%
(N=3,631)
N
%
Neither
parent
interviewed
(N=1,724)
N
%
974
1359
1039
436
25.58
35.69
27.28
11.45
96
133
175
111
18.64
25.83
33.98
21.55
720
1151
1228
532
19.83
31.70
33.82
14.65
421
315
457
531
24.42
18.27
26.51
30.80
1260
2213
230
105
33.09
58.11
6.04
2.76
236
230
29
20
45.83
44.66
5.63
3.88
1966
1382
204
79
54.14
38.06
5.62
2.18
1094
479
116
35
63.46
27.78
6.73
2.03
457
129
196
280
12.00
3.39
5.15
7.35
49
20
46
51
9.51
3.88
8.93
9.90
398
107
203
364
10.96
2.95
5.59
10.02
108
54
223
266
6.26
3.13
12.94
15.43
2746
72.11
349
67.77
2559
70.48
1073
62.24
1242
249
194
32.62
6.54
5.09
171
64
31
33.20
12.43
6.02
1124
434
320
30.96
11.95
8.81
509
345
230
29.52
20.01
13.34
154
1969
4.04
51.71
14
235
2.72
45.63
94
1659
2.59
45.69
23
617
1.33
35.79
638
1731
784
655
16.75
45.46
20.59
17.20
97
175
99
144
18.83
33.98
19.22
27.96
837
1004
705
1085
23.05
27.65
19.42
29.88
388
276
210
850
22.51
16.01
12.18
49.30
401
10.53
90
17.48
546
15.04
484
28.07
17
Caseworkers Perceptions of Father Involvement
In the interviews with caseworkers, we asked both about specific cases referred to the IA program and
also about their general experiences with respect to trainings or efforts to engage fathers. Their
responses to the more general questions, or statements they made, indicate a disparity between the
number of cases in which a father was involved in the IA process and caseworkers’ perceptions of the
number of fathers that participate in the process. According to the data, fathers have participated in the
IA in over 50 percent of cases. However, many caseworkers seemed to view father involvement as
something of a rarity.
Relative to working with fathers, as you know, statistically I’m certain that you have a very small
percentage of the fathers. I can count in my 18 years and I’m thinking maybe 15 fathers that were
active out of all of the cases I’ve had. [Caseworker #6]
In my cases a lot of my fathers aren’t present. So I haven’t had to work with many of them. And
the fathers that I do have are either out of state or they’ve just been kind of handed down to me. I
think there’s only been—I’m trying to think…maybe about two that have been really involved with
my cases that are current. [Caseworker #36]
The majority of my cases do not have fathers. I think I may have had a handful that had fathers.
One case in particular, the father was not very cooperative, was resistant to services, and blamed
the agency as well as everybody else for his lack of participation. Let’s see. That was that case.
One of my cases was a result of rape, so we don’t have any father. Two cases like that. I have one
father now, he’s a little resistant, but because he still has a criminal history … Then I have another
father who’s somewhat cooperative…and then I have another father, who’s in Mexico, so there’s
lack of participation with his particular case because of the distance. [Caseworker #24]
This disparity may reflect the fact that the IA interview completion rates pertain only to the roughly 50
percent of placement cases that get referred to the IA program.5 The involvement of IA screeners may
result in higher interview rates with fathers, since IA intake coordinators or screeners assist in
identifying, locating, arranging, and conducting interviews with fathers; however, due to differences in
data collection for non-IA cases, we were unable to confirm this. The discrepancy between IA
interview completion rates and caseworkers’ reports of father involvement also raises questions about
5
When the IA program was launched, only standard placement cases were referred to the program. DCFS uses standard to
refer to new cases, not opened for services in the home, but for which a child needs out-of-home placement at the time of case
opening; or an adopted child for whom out-of-home placement is required; or a previously closed DCFS case that is reopened
based on new findings and for which the child requires a new placement. Data indicate that between 2005 and 2008, standard
placement cases comprised 46 to 53 percent of all DCFS placement cases. Therefore, an IA was completed for about half of
all placement cases during this time period.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
18
whether father involvement extends beyond the initial interviews to ongoing case planning and service
engagement, which we explore later in this report. In the next section, we draw on the IA reports from
a random sample of interviewed fathers to understand the context and nature of their involvement in
child welfare cases.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
19
A Closer Look at Interviewed
Fathers
DCFS describes the purpose of the IA interviews with parents, guardians, stepparents, paramours, and
other household persons as follows:
The interview will reveal psychosocial history, functioning, and strengths. In addition, interviews
will identify problematic behaviors related to substance abuse, sexual abuse, sexually problematic
behaviors, domestic violence, developmental issues, mental illness and other mental health
concerns.
The information that caseworkers and IA screeners gather in these interviews is then integrated into the
final IA report, which caseworkers described as a “living document” or a “roadmap” for the case
moving forward. In this section, we draw on a sample of reports to provide detailed information about
the circumstances of fathers and the role they play or could play with respect to the family’s
involvement with child welfare.
Individual and Case Characteristics
As would be expected with random sampling, the characteristics of the fathers in this sample of 49
records were reflective of the both parents and father only groups in that a majority of the fathers were
white, a majority of the cases involved neglect, and the proportion of cases in which both parents were
interviewed was predominant. The detailed information contained in the IA reports augments the
characteristics captured in the administrative data to provide a more comprehensive description of these
fathers.
•
Half of the fathers interviewed were over age 36, while slightly less than half were between the
ages of 22 and 35, and a small number of fathers were age 21 or under.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
20
•
Three-fourths of the fathers interviewed were biological fathers; the remaining fathers
interviewed were stepfathers, paramours, putative fathers, adoptive fathers, and legal fathers.
•
More than half of the fathers were residing with the child at the time DCFS took custody,
although some of these resident fathers were under legal “no-contact” orders (they were not
supposed to be living with the children).6 The remaining fathers in the sample were not residing
in the child’s home at the time the child entered care.
•
Several of the interviewed fathers had children other than those in care with the same mother
named in the report, and almost a quarter of the fathers interviewed had fathered other children
with someone other than the mother named in the report.
•
Two-thirds of the interviewed fathers were married or in a relationship at the time of the
interview, although not necessarily with the mother named in the report.
•
The vast majority of the perpetrators were mothers or mothers and fathers together. For three
quarters of these cases, the charge was neglect. A small proportion of the cases named only the
father as the alleged perpetrator, and in those cases almost three-fourths involved physical
abuse. In some cases, the family was struggling with a child’s emotional or behavioral issue
that led to one or more psychiatric hospitalizations.
Fathers’ Circumstances and Problematic Behaviors
Family dynamics, poverty, unemployment, drugs and alcohol, and social isolation have all been
identified as important factors in understanding the etiology of child maltreatment (National Research
Council, 1993). Less is known, however, about how fathers fit into this ecological perspective. Several
researchers have identified a need to move beyond demographic data, preferably by interviewing
fathers and children, in order to fully comprehend the relationships, contributions, and circumstances of
fathers whose children are involved in child welfare systems (Dubowitz, 2009; Dubowitz et al., 2001;
Guterman & Lee, 2005).
Here, we describe the ecology of fathers interviewed in the IA process as depicted in the screeners’
reports, which are based on information gathered directly from the fathers, their children, and other
family members interviewed in the assessment process. Such factors are important not only to
6
Fathers’ housing, residency, and household frequently change early in the integrated assessment period. Five
fathers were in jail at the time the child was placed in custody, another four fathers were in jail by the time the
interviews were conducted.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
21
understand variation in the level or nature of father involvement but also in efforts to target service
provision to fathers and successfully engage them in services to meet the child’s and family’s needs.
Housing
When possible, the caseworker and IA screener try to observe the residence at the time of the interview,
noting any safety hazards, whether there is adequate space, and other concerns about the condition of
the residence. For over half of the cases in this sample, the father reported or was observed to have a
stable and adequate residence. In fewer than one-fifth of the cases, the father was incarcerated at the
time custody was taken, and in about half of those cases, the father reported plans to move in with his
parents or other relatives after his release. Only three fathers had stable, independent housing but
insufficient space for children, although this has been cited as a barrier to being considered as a
placement resource (Scalera, 2001).
Cohabitation with adults other than a mother or paramour was noted for just over a third of the fathers
interviewed. In the majority of these cases, the father was living with relatives at the time the child was
placed in custody, sometimes with the mother as well. In a few more cases, there were other unrelated
adults in the home. The financial benefit of living with others was clear as the screeners frequently
noted that the father and/or both parents were not paying any rent or sometimes were behind in the rent
they were expected to pay. Overall, though, it was often unclear whether living with relatives was
supportive or detrimental. In some cases, screeners documented the benefits of having other adults
available to provide childcare, and in other cases, they raised concerns about risks due to smoke
inhalation, domestic violence, or drug use by other adults in the home.
Education and Employment
Slightly fewer than half of the fathers interviewed dropped out before completing high school. Of those
fathers, just over half obtained their GED. For most of the other half of the fathers interviewed, a high
school diploma was their highest level of educational attainment. Although some did go on to attend
college or trade school, few had a postsecondary degree.
Half of the fathers were employed at the time of the assessment. Aside from current employment
status, over a third of the fathers interviewed described a history of unstable and sporadic employment,
with brief employment periods and/or repeated job loss, frequently due to periods of incarceration. In
many instances, fathers currently unemployed indicated their employment had been recently interrupted
by such crisis events as lay-offs, incarceration, or a poor health diagnosis. Finally, a small but notable
number (5) of the fathers who were interviewed had served in the military at some point. Three of the
five military-involved fathers were discharged for medical reasons and/or reported effects of military
service on their functioning (i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder).
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
22
Educational attainment and employment status are strongly correlated. Among employed fathers, a
large majority have either graduated from high school and/or furthered their education beyond a high
school diploma. Only two employed fathers had not achieved a high school diploma or a GED. Of the
fathers who were unemployed, half had a high school diploma, one-fifth had less than a high school
diploma, and approximately one-third obtained a GED, with several completing the GED while
incarcerated.
Financial Security
Employment has important ramifications for—but does not fully explain—the level of financial
security that the employed fathers describe during their interview. Approximately one-third of the
employed fathers also received public or private financial assistance, primarily from sources other than
family members.
Finances were clearly strained for the vast majority of the fathers who were not working. Most
unemployed fathers relied heavily on family support for money and/or housing, rather than public
benefit programs or other forms of financial assistance. Although it occurred less frequently than with
employed fathers, some unemployed fathers did describe reliance on public benefits such as SSI-D
(disability payments).
Informal Supports
According to the reports, the overwhelming majority of fathers in this sample indicated they had
informal supports on which they could rely, as needed. Those supports were frequently immediate or
extended family networks—sometimes their own, sometimes their spouse’s or partner’s—and the
nature of the support included housing, childcare, and financial assistance as well as emotional support.
Domestic Violence
As noted in the methods section of this report, this particular topic was not addressed in a consistent
manner across all reports, sometimes due to recommendations made by an attorney for the father, and
sometimes due to screeners’ inability to compare the self-report to the Law Enforcement Agencies Data
System (LEADS) reports. Where LEADS reports were available, they provided several examples in
which fathers denied the presence of domestic violence, only to have their LEADS reports show active
orders of protection or domestic battery arrests. It is evident that domestic violence was a factor
contributing to the child’s removal from the home in approximately 10 percent of cases. Furthermore,
domestic violence was noted by the screeners as a concern in more than half of the cases where fathers
were interviewed.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
23
Substance Abuse
The overlap between parental substance abuse and child welfare are well documented (Ryan, 2006). In
more than a third of the cases in the sample, alcohol or drug abuse was a contributing factor to the
removal of the children. However, there were stark differences among the perpetrators of child abuse.
When mothers were the sole perpetrators of the abuse or neglect, drug or alcohol abuse was a factor in
almost two-thirds of the cases. In contrast, substance abuse played a role in less than a quarter of the
cases in which both parents or only the father was named as the perpetrator. In three of the four drugrelated cases with both parents named as perpetrators, methamphetamine labs were found in the
residence.
More than half of fathers had a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse, and a small group of fathers
acknowledged an existing problem with substance abuse. Another one-fourth of the sample denied an
existing problem with illegal substances, but other information from the IA indicated that there were
drug or alcohol related problems. For example, several fathers denied using drugs, but were
incarcerated at the time of the interview for trafficking illegal substances. Almost half of the fathers
who admit to a history or existing problem with substance abuse began using illegal substances as
teenagers or at even younger ages. Most of the fathers who had a history of drug or alcohol abuse
described some form of addiction treatment in their past, and many acknowledged they may have a
need for continued or new treatment. Although seemingly willing to engage in treatment, few fathers
acknowledged the negative effects of their substance abuse on their children and/or families.
Criminal Behavior/Background
The vast majority of the fathers who were interviewed for the IA had positive LEADS results or
admitted to having a criminal background. More than half of those fathers had committed violent acts,
such as aggravated sexual assault, attempted murder, and weapons offenses.7 More than two-thirds of
fathers with histories of substance abuse had experienced an arrest or conviction for a crime related to
illegal drugs or alcohol abuse. More than one-third of the fathers had spent some time in prison and two
of the fathers had notations in their records that they were to be considered “armed and dangerous.”
Nature of Fathers’ Involvement
Numerous studies not specific to child welfare populations point to how factors such as employment,
social supports, parental relationship dynamics, legal problems, incarceration, substance abuse, and
having biological children in other residences are associated with the degree of father involvement
7
According to the LEADS reports, domestic violence offenses and simple assault are not considered violent acts.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
24
(Fagan and Palkovitz, 2007; Garfinkle, McLanahan, Tienda, & Brooks-Gunn, 2001; Laasko & Adams,
2006).
Looking specifically at fathers contacted by child welfare caseworkers, Malm, Zielewski, & Chen
(2008) coded nonresident father involvement based on caseworkers’ reports of fathers’ visits with their
children in foster care as well as financial and nonfinancial support, and found greater involvement to
be associated with shorter placement duration and higher likelihood of reunification.
In this section, we sought to draw on the comprehensive interviews with fathers as summarized in the
IA reports to characterize fathers as potential resource/positively involved, negatively involved, or
interviewed only. We then examine whether and how the nature of their involvement aligns with
fathers’ circumstances and problematic behaviors as described in the previous section.
Characterizing Fathers’ Involvement
We use negative involvement to describe fathers whose involvement or interactions with the child or
family has negative characteristics or insurmountable challenges that might be perceived to be
ultimately harmful to the child. Characteristics of cases characterized with negative father involvement
include cases where the father is:
•
an untreated, convicted sex offender;
•
an operator of a methamphetamine lab in the home and unwilling to take responsibility for
damages to children or home;
•
a perpetrator of intense domestic violence;
•
unwilling to participate in treatment for domestic violence or drug abuse;
•
in violation of a “no contact” order with the mother or child;
•
and/or unwilling to participate in services to the extent that the screener articulates concerns
that the father’s involvement endangers the child.
The following summary describes an example of the IA report text for a case in which we characterized
the father as negatively involved:
[FATHER] is mentally unstable, claims to suffer from bipolar disorder, to be on medication… has
been threatening hospital staff, has been escorted out by security, has been belligerent, “can be
almost dangerous,” and is described as “volatile and explosive.” … [FATHER] does not
acknowledge the impact of his behavior on [CHILD]. He did not express feelings of empathy for
[CHILD] related to the present situation, nor did he express an understanding of the long-term
impact this situation may have on [CHILD]. He was unable to acknowledge the fragile medical
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
25
state that [CHILD] is in and the necessity of following through with the recommended medical
treatments.
For the purpose of this analysis, fathers who met any of the criteria for negative involvement were
considered negatively involved. Although few instances were noted in this sample, it is conceivable
that a father could meet the above typology but also participate in visitation or articulate an interest in
his child’s development.
We used potential resource/ positive involvement to describe fathers who were perceived to contribute
or have the potential to contribute to the development of a child through a variety of means, such as
fathers who
•
demonstrate actions that promote contact with the child;
•
participate in visitation;
•
the screener views as earnestly attempting to bring positive change to the family;
•
and/or are legitimate permanent placement options for the child.
An example of text from an IA report for a case in which we characterized the father as potential
resource/ positive involvement is as follows:
[FATHER ] first saw [CHILD] starting at 2 months old, and saw her about ten times [over a 4month period]. An order of protection was issued … and expired. Dad now visits [CHILD]
approximately every other day, but prior to this DCFS involvement he had limited contact with her.
Dad had been living with his mother, but moved into his stepmother’s home so that [his mother]
could provide daycare. [FATHER] expressed interest in obtaining custody.
Table 4 provides a breakdown of how fathers were categorized with respect to both the nature of their
involvement and their residency status at the time the child was placed with DCFS. In this sample of
interviewed fathers, resident fathers were close to evenly split between negatively involved and
potential resource/positively involved; however, the majority of nonresident fathers were considered
potential resource/positively involved.
Table 4. Nature of Involvement and Residency Status of Interviewed Fathers
Interviewed
Potential
Father Residency
Negative
Only
Resource/
Positive
Resident
1
14
17
Non Resident
1
4
16
Total
2
18
33
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
Total
32
21
53
26
How Do Fathers’ Circumstances and Problematic Behaviors Differ According to the
Nature of their Involvement?
Having characterized the residency status and nature of involvement for each of the interviewed fathers,
the circumstances and problematic behaviors described earlier were reexamined to see if any patterns
emerged, and they did. Compared to fathers who were perceived to be a potential resource or
positively involved, more of the fathers in the negatively involved group had left high school prior to
obtaining a diploma. The negatively involved fathers were also less likely to be employed and more of
them reported instability in their work history. Their lower education levels, current unemployment,
and sporadic employment histories likely contributed to the fact that they were more often described by
IA screeners as experiencing financial strain.
With respect to problematic behaviors, the negatively involved fathers were more apt to have been
convicted of a violent crime and many reported problems with substance abuse. With respect to
substance abuse, there were also differences within this group according to residency status. Many of
the negatively involved, resident fathers minimized their problems with substance abuse during their
interviews; few recognized the difficulties they and their families face due to their alcohol and
substance abuse and/or the value of treatment. On the other hand, negatively involved, nonresident
fathers—all of whom had been arrested or convicted of crimes related to controlled substances—were
more forthcoming about problems with addictions. All four of the fathers in this group had been
arrested or convicted of crimes related to controlled substances.
By virtue of the dichotomous categorization of positively and negatively involved fathers, one can
deduce that fathers who were considered to be a potential resource/positively involved had patterns
opposite those noted above for negatively involved fathers. However, a few additional observations are
worth noting. In many of the cases where there is a potential resource/positively involved, resident
father, the reason for removal includes child psychiatric problems, concerns about parental mental
illness, concerns about parental developmental delays, and/or failed adoption. Also, despite the fact
that a number of potential resource/positively involved fathers did not graduate from high school, many
more in this group obtained their General Educational Development (GED) certificate (compared to
those negatively involved fathers who did not graduate from high school).
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
27
From Interviewing to Intervening
Research indicates that not only are fathers frequently excluded from investigations and assessments in
child welfare, but they are also frequently absent in interventions or identified as challenging to engage
(O’Donnell et al., 2005; Scott & Crooks, 2006). In a recent Child Maltreatment special issue dedicated
to fathers and child maltreatment, several authors call for further research on engagement of fathers in
services, suggesting that not only is it important to include fathers, but that including and successfully
engaging fathers might lead to more effective interventions (Dubowitz, 2009; Lee, Bellamy, &
Guterman, 2009). In this section, we draw on data from the sample of IA reports as well as service
plans for those cases, examining how information gathered in the assessment process might relate to
service planning and engagement. We also draw on caseworkers’ comments regarding service
recommendations for fathers on their caseloads and their experiences in engaging fathers in services.
IA Screeners’ Assessments of Fathers’ Willingness to Engage in Services
Of the 53 fathers interviewed in the sample of IA reports reviewed, just under one-third had any
mention of current or past involvement in counseling, mental health treatment, or other treatment
services. Of those that did, a handful reported that their service involvement was prior to the current
DCFS case, mostly counseling that was viewed as “helpful;” one father reported previously completing
parenting classes that mainly covered “what [he] already knew.” Resident fathers were more apt than
nonresident fathers to be involved in services prior to or at the time of the assessment.
A prominent theme in the review of assessment reports was the screeners’ notation that the father was
willing to engage in services, sometimes including comments regarding insights into or
acknowledgement of the problems:
[father] appears to want treatment services not only for himself but his marriage, son, and family.
He is concerned about the negative impact his choices and behaviors have on his family. He wants
to be better equipped to have more meaningful and healthy relationships.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
28
[father] appeared willing to participate in whatever services are determined to be needed to address
his family’s needs. He appeared open about poor judgments and decisions he made.
[father] acknowledged that he has difficulty regulating his anger, which led to the current DCFS
involvement. He is willing to receive anger management and therapeutic services.
[father’s] participation in the IA interview demonstrated a desire to begin the process to address his
significant issues. He appears to be intelligent and has some insight into how his coping strategies
such as marijuana addiction and his violent outbursts, and how they have negatively affected his
parenting relationships.
Statements such as those above appeared in over a third of the cases, more often cases with a resident
father. In only one case did the screener comment on a father’s lack of insight into his problems.
Although [father] has been taking steps to address his substance abuse issues, it is unknown if he
understands the significant impact his substance abuse has on his parenting or the seriousness of his
addiction.
The importance of fathers’ willingness to or interest in being involved was also noted by caseworkers.
The fathers need to want to be involved. And to that end, should they want to be involved, I am
more than willing, and I think that most of my coworkers are more than willing to go the distance to
get them involved and to provide them with the necessary services. [Caseworker #6]
My other father, he wants to take custody of the baby. So we’re just having him… do the
services… And he is… very intelligent and very willing and cooperative to work with us… He is
real positive. [Caseworker #36]
What, then, does this suggest with respect to fathers who are not immediately willing or open to
services? Our more in-depth report data may be limited in addressing that question in that all these
fathers participated in interviews, and willingness to participate in an interview may correspond with
willingness to engage in services. Beyond a willingness to engage, what happens when fathers do
engage in services? To what extent do those services fit with or recognize their circumstances and
perspectives and address their needs while eliciting changes needed to improve family dynamics and/or
assure child safety? These are important questions to answer as the child welfare field grapples not
only with how to best serve these fathers but also with evaluating the effectiveness of services provided.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
29
Alignment between Assessed Needs and Service Plans
In evaluating the implementation of the IA program, we found that most caseworkers interviewed
articulated an understanding of the program that extended beyond interviewing and producing the IA
reports, emphasizing how the assessment connected to the development of service plans (see Smithgall
et al., 2009). However, research conducted by one of the Integrated Assessment contract agencies
(Harlow & Mizan, 2008) indicates 20 percent of service plans omitted important recommendations
included in the IA report, while 46 percent of service plans incorporated a new recommendation not
previously mentioned in the IA report. Among those omitted recommendations, therapy
recommendations were often left out of service plans. Their analysis of recommendations made
specifically for secondary parents, 61 percent of whom are fathers or paramours, revealed similar
proportions of omitted and added recommendations in the service plan. In this study, we applied a
similar approach, focusing specifically on integrated assessments in which a father was identified and
interviewed. We distilled from this analysis the types of recommendations most frequently noted, and
also whether they matched, were added to the service plan, or were missing from the service plan.
(Please refer to Appendix B for a more detailed breakdown of individual types of recommendations
included in each of these categories.)
As noted earlier in this report, there were 49 cases in this sub-sample and 53 fathers were interviewed;
however, there were 67 fathers represented in the recommendations and service plans. That is, 14
fathers of children in these families were not interviewed, yet screeners or caseworkers included them
in the recommendations. The majority of the recommendations made for these 14 fathers were
restricted to participating in the IA or communicating with the agency.
Recommendations for therapy and visitation were made for 78 percent of the fathers, which roughly
corresponds to the proportion of fathers who were interviewed as part of the IA (see Table 5). To the
extent that therapy recommendations were missing from service plans, this often reflected
recommendations around family therapy, sometimes accompanied by qualifying statements such as
“when approved by mom’s therapist” or “once domestic violence issues are addressed.” Other frequent
recommendations were related to classes/education (includes parenting and anger management classes)
and substance abuse, with education recommendations often missing from the service plans.
Recommendations for further assessment were made for a third of the fathers and more often than not
were present in both the IA and the service plans. On the other hand, recommendations related to
finances and employment, and housing were also present for a third of the fathers, but frequently
because they were added to the service plan (and not in the IA). Another type of recommendation often
added to the service plans but not present in the IA was “self-improvement”—this would include such
things as “take responsibility for impact of behavior on children.”
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
30
Table 5: Comparison of Recommendations for Fathers in the IA and the Service Plan (SP)
Percent of fathers with
this recommendation in
either the IA or SP
Added
Matched
Missing
Recommendation
to SP
IA and SP
from SP
(N = 67)
Category
Therapy
12
39
21
77.6
Classes/Education
13
16
19
53.7
Substance Abuse
21
22
6
47.8
Visitation
13
35
11
77.6
Communication
45
3
8
73.1
Further Assessment 5
11
7
31.3
Health
2
2
1
6.0
Finances &
Employment
17
5
2
34.3
Housing
17
6
1
32.8
Cultural
0
2
1
4.5
Legal
8
6
1
20.9
Self-Improvement
8
0
1
13.4
For many of the categories that might be considered reflective of more concrete needs, such as housing
or employment, the recommendations were frequently stated in terms that the father should secure such
things. For example, one popular recommendation is “Father will secure and maintain a stable income
for his family.” While 23 fathers received such recommendations, only 2 fathers received a
recommendation for specific services such as job training.
Caseworkers’ Experiences with Fathers and Services
The types of services most frequently mentioned in the assessment recommendations and service plans
described in the previous section also came up in the interviews with caseworkers. In many of the case
examples that were discussed in the interviews, caseworkers listed a number of different types of
additional assessments and services for an individual father.
Man I’m telling you, he’s doing well. We got him, he’s in individual therapy. He’s doing anger
management. There were no substance abuse issues. Right. And also doing parenting.
[Caseworker #23]
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
31
We thought counseling would be beneficial for him. We actually recommended a psychiatric
evaluation, parenting classes, substance abuse assessment with more likely treatment, but the
assessment just to determine what level of treatment. [Caseworker #12]
The father was recommended to comply with court orders, comply with random urinalysis drops.
Should they be dirty, complete an evaluation for substance abuse. He, because of his previous case,
had some carryover tasks, the basic—well, I don’t need to get into all those tasks. He was
recommended for sex offender treatment and then once the—or the sex offender evaluation and the
sex offender treatment because we already had evaluations and no, he needed it, and once the
treatment was complete, then we would refer him to a parenting assessment, but if he wasn’t going
to get okay in his sex offending department, the parenting assessment’s a moot point.
[Caseworker #19]
The fathers being referred to in these cases presumably fit a profile similar to the one discussed in the
section on circumstances and problematic behaviors, with many facing unemployment or financial
strain. This raises questions about the logistics of arranging for participation in multiple services and
consistently engaging fathers for the duration those services are needed. The fact that many services
are being recommended at the same time for an individual father also raises questions about
coordination across providers or whether there is any evidence on service effectiveness to guide the
order in which these services are put in place.
Barriers to Providing Certain Services to Fathers or Services to Certain Fathers
The previously noted high levels of unemployment and high incidence of cohabitation were reflected in
the fact that employment and housing recommendations were often added to service plans and not
originally included in integrated assessments. One caseworker shared some thoughts on why these
types of recommendations in particular may not be consistently included in either the service plan or
the integrated assessment.
I just recently had a case where the screener wanted her to have vocational help and assistance
finding housing and that’s just not what we do for natural parents. So we had to leave those
services out of the service plan and just offer the services that we had available… I think it was the
same type of situation for natural dad because he wasn’t in school, so I’m sure there was some
recommendations for like vocational assistance…We can offer him resources like, “Go here, go
here,” but there’s no specific service… that he can go to on a weekly basis. He engages the
services like counseling and parenting classes and stuff like that... Mostly those [services other than
counseling and parenting classes] are not necessary as far as the court is concerned to have the
children returned to the home…[For example,] we can return a child to the home even though the
mother is not working. She just has to have some source of income... so we know that the child
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
32
will be taken care of. Things like vocational assistance… we can offer resources but there [are] no
specific service[s]… the judge... might question me in court and the only thing I can say is... my
agency doesn’t offer the service specifically, but what we can do is offer the parent resources... But
usually, [the court is] more focused on things like parenting, substance abuse treatment, domestic
violence services, the major [services] are usually what the court wants to see done before you send
the child back... Most of the services are safety-related as far as DCFS is concerned. [Caseworker
#41]
Several caseworkers felt there just were not as many services for fathers as there were for mothers,
perhaps requiring a greater level of effort to be put forth by fathers who are interested in making
changes and gaining or re-gaining custody of their child.
…My own personal opinion, the system is not geared for the fathers, so I kind of let the father
know, “You need to do this, and you need to stay on top of your game if you want to get your child
back.” Now I actually did have a child returned to her father, but he was determined, so that was a
good thing. But you have more resources for women, so it’s… hard. [Caseworker #30]
Caseworkers also described challenges in getting services to fathers who were incarcerated, an issue
that was again fairly prevalent among our random sample of interviewed fathers.
The most that they would do [in jail] is they prescribed him Xanax or something for being anxious,
but no, they don’t provide any kind of substance abuse treatment, or mental health treatment, or
anything like that when they’re in [jail]. [Caseworker #37]
Despite all the apparent barriers, a number of workers were able to identify fathers who were active
participants in services, and in such cases, the workers spoke of how fathers that are involved are a
positive resource for the children or family.
I have a father right now where the mother is absent… The father is the one that’s doing everything
and… meeting with him is actually a good thing because we’re able to… give him resources…to
help him take care of this baby properly, and that also reassures us that he is actually gonna be the
appropriate parent for the baby, to take care of the baby. [Caseworker #33]
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
33
From Reaching Fathers to
Reunifying Children and Families
Despite the systemic bias and barriers present in this study as well as others, some research indicates
that children with highly involved nonresident fathers—particularly those who provide nonfinancial
support—have higher likelihood of reunification (Malm et al., 2008). In this section, we return to the
four categories we created based on whether parents completed IA interviews: both parents
interviewed, mother only interviewed, father only interviewed, and neither parents interviewed. Taking
into account factors such as age, race, type of maltreatment and geographic location that predicted
which cases would fall into these four groups, we examine rates of reunification. We also take a closer
look at the subsample of IA reports and the screener and worker prognosis for reunification. Finally,
we present statements from caseworkers that confirm an emphasis on service completion and the
existence of a perceived bias toward reunification with mothers.
Reunification Is Higher among Children whose Fathers Were Interviewed
Not only are the child and case characteristics different for the four groups based on parent interview
completion, but the likelihood of reunification is significantly different also. Over the 2005 to 2008
period, 38.2 percent of children in the group in which both parents completed IA interviews were
reunified; this compares to 29.1 percent of children in the group in which only the father completed an
IA interview, 28.7 percent of children in the group in which only the mother completed an IA
interview, and 9.9 percent of children in the group in which neither parent completed an IA interview.
In a survival analysis controlling for age, race, type of maltreatment, initial placement type, prior foster
care placement, and region, for children in the group in which both parents were interviewed the
likelihood of reunification was 3.2 times greater than for children in the group in which neither parent
was interviewed. The likelihood of reunification among children in both of the groups in which only
one parent was interviewed was 2.4 times greater than for children in the group in which neither parent
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
34
was interviewed. While differences between both parents, one parent, and neither parent were
statistically significant, there were no significant differences between the groups in which only the
mother was interviewed vs. only the father was interviewed (See Appendix C for full results of the
model). Figure 3 depicts these differences in reunification along a time continuum, where the X-axis
shows the timeline from initial placement to reunification, and the lines in the graph decline as cases are
closed for reunification.
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier Survival Curves, by Completion of Parent Interviews
1.00
0.90
Survival Distribution Function
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
2
33
64
95
125
155
187
220
253
285
318
353
385
425
458
498
537
570
612
659
708
755
813
894
997
1148
T ime (days) to Reunification Since Entry to System
Both parents
Father only
Mother only
Neither parent
The data used for these models do not indicate which parent the child is reunified with. The group of
cases in which both parents are interviewed may include nonresident fathers, much like the random
sample of cases from this group in which IA reports indicate that approximately 40 percent of the
fathers interviewed were nonresident fathers, the overwhelming majority of whom were considered to
be positively involved with their child(ren).
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
35
Assessment Report Prognosis for Reunification Often Leaves Fathers Out
A prognosis about the likelihood of family reunification should be made upon completion of the
integrated assessment and is included in the IA report. In comparison to other sections of those reports,
the content of the Prognosis section varied dramatically from case to case, and in some instances the
prognosis for reunification was altogether absent. Reports also may have included a rationale for the
prognosis, including an assessment of the psychological state of the parent(s), the perceived likelihood
that the parent(s) would participate in services, and/or an assessment of the parent(s) ability to meet
minimum parenting standards. In several cases, the IA report made a prediction about whether the
parent(s) would participate in services and/or improve their parenting skills, but no specific prognosis
for reunification.
Approximately one-quarter of the fathers were described as having a good/favorable prognosis for
reunification with their children. All but one of the fathers with a good or favorable prognosis was
considered a potential resource/positively involved and most were residents at the time of the child was
taken into DCFS custody. For almost half of the fathers interviewed in the cases in which we reviewed
IA reports, the prognosis for reunification was guarded or poor. In the remaining cases in this sample,
the fathers were not discussed at all in the prognosis section of the report. The great majority of the
fathers who were not discussed were negatively involved, resident fathers. However, in a few cases the
prognosis for the potential resource/positively involved father was not described at all, including one
case where the father was actively seeking custody of the child.
Among cases with resident fathers, the prognosis generally described both parents, rather than
describing the prognosis for reunification for each parent separately. However, in four cases, the
prognosis of the resident father was different than the prognosis of the resident mother. Most of the IA
reports in which nonresident fathers were interviewed described the mother as the first priority for
reunification. In several of the cases where the mother was the more likely candidate for reunification,
the nonresident father was also positively involved and engaged with the child. Among the cases with
nonresident fathers, very few were viewed as the more-likely parent for reunification.
In a few cases, fathers were described as having a good prognosis for reunification with their children,
yet it was also noted in the report that the child did not have an interest in reunification with their father.
It was unclear how the author would suggest treating the child’s preference in the recommendation.
Is There a Systemic Bias toward Reunifying the Child with the Mother?
The apparent biases that emerged from the analysis of the IA reports—whereby mothers were described
as the first priority for reunification or the prognosis for reunification with the father was not addressed
at all—also emerged in statements caseworkers made in the interviews. Several caseworkers perceived
or articulated a systemic bias toward reunifying the child with the mother rather than the father. They
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
36
also noted some challenges—such as having sufficient space—that may thwart fathers even when they
complete the recommended services.
When most cases come in, they’re either poverty or divorce, single mothers, you know what I
mean, and so usually the mother has the child. Therefore, the father really hasn’t had any
involvement, and so more of the concentration, I believe, is stressed on putting the child back in the
home that it came from, which is usually the mom. Therefore, dads kind of get [left] on the
wayside. [Caseworker #14]
Dad may have a little bit more success in services and in having them returned home with him,
yeah, I think that’s it. Sounds about right. She’s one of those cases where she does everything and
so when push comes to shove, I’ll have no choice but to recommend that her children return to her
but my gut is telling me they might be back in the system sooner than later. …The biggest issue for
dad is if they were returned to him, he doesn’t have the space for ‘em. [Caseworker #41]
For my one case the child was taken away from the father. So that one was real easy because there
was no mother involved. So he was the primary parent. But let’s see, my other father, he wants to
take custody of the baby. So we’re just having him, you know do the services. And we kind of say
that it’s like a race to the finish line. Whoever finishes the services first. And he is real…he’s very
intelligent and very willing and cooperative to work with us. So, you know he is real positive.
[Caseworker #36]
Beyond noted changes in behavior or attitudes that may have contributed to the initial determination of
risk, caseworkers’ statements indicate that the willingness to participate in and complete services is the
driving factor in assessing the prospects for reunification. This may tie in, then, to the previous finding
suggesting an association between willingness to engage in the IA interview and willingness to
participate in services, creating the sense that while not all fathers engage with workers and services,
those that do have better prospects for reunification.
I don’t have very many fathers that have ever stepped forward…those that have I can almost say
without equivocation that those kids went back home. [Caseworker #6]
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
37
Conclusions
This study augments the existing knowledge regarding father involvement and child welfare in that it
draws on data produced as part of an innovative statewide family assessment initiative with an explicit
emphasis on interviewing fathers, both resident and nonresident. The Illinois Integrated Assessment
(IA) process is designed to provide better information about child and family strengths, support
systems, and service needs, and thus collects in-depth information on fathers’ circumstances as well as
mothers’.
The fathers who participated in these assessment interviews do not represent a homogeneous
population, and drawing on the assessment reports, we were able to group fathers based on whether or
not they shared a residence with the child and on the character of their involvement or interactions with
the child. Although nearly all of the nonresident fathers were described as being positively involved or
a potential resource for the child, the same was not true of all resident fathers. Thus, the three groups of
fathers that emerged from this work are those fathers who are resident fathers who are a potential
resource/positively involved, resident fathers who are negatively involved, and nonresident fathers who
are a potential resource/positively involved. Examining these groups more closely, it is clear that a
differentiated approach to engaging fathers is needed, as well as an array of services that best meets
their particular circumstances.
Consistent with prior research, the potential resource/positively involved, nonresident fathers may
represent a substantial resource for children. Despite their contributions or potential to contribute to
their child’s well-being, some of these fathers also faced resource constraints that prohibited them from
assuming a custodial role, and child welfare caseworkers seemed to indicate that few resources were
available to meet these fathers’ needs. Efforts to draw on these fathers’ extended resource networks
and to support their ongoing involvement in their children’s lives may have significant payoff.
Potential resource/positively involved, resident fathers often were members of families with unusual
circumstances, such as cases where the mother or child was suffering from mental illness. In many of
these families, the child welfare system has an opportunity to provide services and supports to resolve
crisis situations, leading to reunification. In addition, all four step-fathers in the sample were positively
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
38
involved and residents. The legal commitment to partnership in a marriage with step-children may
indicate meaningful differences in engagement and supportive capacity as compared to the level of
commitment to partners who are paramours.
Perhaps the most challenging group is the negatively involved/resident fathers. This was the group who
experienced a number of difficulties, including failure to complete high school or unemployment or
sporadic employment. Domestic violence, substance abuse, and criminal behaviors were also prevalent
among this group. Although many of these fathers had some assets, such as their role in securing stable
housing, many of them did not understand or acknowledge the impact of their behaviors on their child
or the rest of the family. These fathers may be more difficult to engage in services and reunification
efforts. When considering how to engage fathers who are seen as a negative influence in the family and
on reunification efforts, caseworkers must be attuned to and equipped to address the dynamics of the
entire family and the potential resistance they may encounter.
Aside from direct financial or in-kind supports they might offer and regardless of the nature of their
own involvement, many of the interviewed fathers also provided additional resources through
immediate or extended family networks, sometimes serving as a placement option, other times offering
additional assistance such as childcare and financial or emotional support. Perhaps reflecting fathers’
contribution to the overall resources available for children, when both parents were interviewed as part
of the IA, children were significantly more likely to be reunified than when only one or neither parent
was interviewed. Thus, the importance of engaging fathers early in the assessment process cannot be
understated.
Sustaining that engagement through services and interventions, however, warrants further attention.
Despite the in-depth information gathered regarding their circumstances and behaviors, and
caseworkers’ reports that many fathers were willing to engage in services, and the degree to which the
assessments, service plans, and services themselves are reflective of and responsive to fathers’ needs
and circumstances, was not clear. There was an overwhelming tendency to recommend therapeutic
services and to require ongoing communication with the child welfare agency. Along with therapeutic
recommendations to address behaviors and relationship dynamics, fathers were often required (or
reminded) to comply with probation requirements and also undergo further assessments. At the same
time, although many of these fathers need housing and employment, caseworkers themselves
acknowledged a paucity of resources or an inability of the child welfare system to leverage resources to
address these problems.
In recent years, a number of efforts have been launched at both the state and federal levels, recognizing
that fathers need supports not only to confront the immediate crises that precipitate child welfare
involvement, but also to address deeper barriers to both engagement and progress, such as poverty,
chronic unemployment, limited education or training, and criminal histories (Miller & Knox, 2001).
Illinois is one of many states working to develop appropriate responses to these issues, as evidenced by
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
39
the creation of Paternal Involvement Centers (PICs). These centers are designed “to help fathers move
more successfully through the DCFS system” by providing a wide range of services, often including not
only literacy programs, GED or educational assistance, transportation, job placement services, training
on parental rights, and visitation centers—but also counseling services, substance abuse education, and
other programs to address clinical issues.
Although PIC centers, with their wide range of programs and services, appear to be a reasonable fit for
the needs and circumstances of many of the fathers assessed in this study, further evidence is needed
regarding the uptake of services, sustained engagement, and effectiveness in achieving change through
these centers or other service systems. Caseworkers play a key role in making linkages, and based on
findings from this study, they may need to take a stronger role in monitoring not only the followthrough with referrals but also the levels of engagement and the extent to which the interventions are
appropriately addressing the identified needs and concerns of these fathers.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
40
References
Curran, L. (2003). Social work and fathers: Child support and fathering programs. Social Work, 48(2).
Dubowitz, H. (2009). Commentary on fathers and children in maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 14(3),
291–293.
Dubowitz, H., Black, M. M., Cox, C. E., Kerr, M. A., Litrownik, A. J., Radhakrishna, A., et al. (2001).
Father involvement and children’s functioning at age 6 years: A multisite study. Child
Maltreatment, 6(4), 300–309.
Fagan, J., & Palkovitz, R. (2007). Unmarried, nonresident fathers’ involvement with their infants: A
risk and resilience perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 21 (3), 479–489.
Franck, E. (2001). Outreach to birthfathers of children in out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 80(3), 381–
399.
Garfinkle, I., McLanahan, S., Tienda, M., & Brooks-Dunn, J. (2001). Fragile families and welfare
reform. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(4/5).
Greene, D., & Anderson Moore, K. (2000). Nonresident father involvement and child well-being
among young children in families on welfare. Marriage & Family Review, 29(2/3), 159–180.
Guterman, N. B., & Lee, Y. (2005). The role of fathers in risk of physical child abuse and neglect:
Possible pathways and unanswered questions. Child Maltreatment, 10, 136–149.
Harlow, S., & Mizan, A. N. (2008). Integrated assessment program (IAP) evaluation of IA program
components phase I. Carbondale, IL: School of Social Work, Southern Illinois University
Carbondale.
Hornsby, D. (2002). Engaging fathers in child welfare cases: A case manager’s perspective. Best
Practice/Next Practice: Family-Centered Child Welfare (Summer 2002).
Laasko, J., & Adams, S. (2006). Noncustodial fathers’ involvement with their children: A right or a
privilege? Families in Society, 85–93.
Lee, S. J., Bellamy, J. L., & Guterman, N. B. (2009). Fathers, physical child abuse, and neglect:
Advancing the knowledge base. Child Maltreatment, 14, 227–231.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
41
Malm, K., Murray, J., & Geen, R. (2006). What about the dads? Child welfare agencies’ efforts to
identify, locate and involve nonresident fathers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
Malm, K., Zielewski, E., & Chen, H. (2008). More about the dads: Exploring associations between
nonresident father involvement and child welfare case outcomes. Washington D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation.
Miller, C., & Knox, V. (2001). The challenge of helping low-income fathers support their children:
Final lessons from parents' fair share. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation.
National Research Council. (1993). Understanding child abuse and neglect. Washington D.C.: National
Academy Press.
O’Donnell, J., Johnson, W., Easley D’Aunno, L., & Thornton, H. (2005). Fathers in child welfare:
Caseworkers’ perspectives. Child Welfare, 84(3), 387–414.
O’Hagan, K. (1997). The problem of engaging men in child protection work. British Journal of Social
Work, 27(1), 25–42.
Ryan, J. P. (2006). Illinois alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA) waiver demonstration: Final
evaluation report: Children and Family Research Center and the Illinois Department of
Children and Family Services.
Scalera, M. B. (2001). An assessment of child welfare practices regarding fathers. Buhl, Idaho:
National Family Preservation Network for the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Scott, K. L., & Crooks, C. V. (2006). Effecting change in maltreating fathers: Critical principles for
intervention planning. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 11, 95–111.
Smithgall, C., Jarpe-Ratner, E., Yang, D.H., DeCoursey, J., Brooks, L., & Goerge, R. (2009). Family
assessment in child welfare: The Illinois DCFS integrated assessment program in policy and
practice. Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
Sonenstein, F., Malm, K., & Billing, A. (2002). Study of fathers’ involvement in permanency planning
and child welfare casework. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
42
Appendix A: Factors Associated
with Interviewing Neither, One or
Both Parents
Age: The older a child is, the more likely he/she is to be in the groups other than our reference group,
the group where both were interviewed.
Race/Ethnicity: Blacks, in contrast to their white counterparts, are more likely to be in the groups other
than our reference group, the group where both were interviewed. Hispanics are more likely to be in the
group where neither was interviewed than our reference group; other races are more likely to be in the
group where a father alone was interviewed than our reference group.
Region: Children from central, and southern DCFS regions are more likely to be in our reference group
than are children in Cook. There is no difference between northern and cook regions.
Placement: Children placed in nonrelative foster homes, in contrast to their counterparts placed in
kinship settings, are more likely to be in the groups where a mother alone was interviewed or where
neither was interviewed, compared to our reference group; the same explanation holds for children
placed in residential settings or children who experienced negative events. By comparison, children
residing in independent settings, in parents’ home initially or all other settings, were less likely to be in
the groups other than our reference group. In other words, children in kinship settings, in contrast to
their counterparts residing in independent settings, in their parents’ home initially or all other settings,
are more likely to be in the groups other than our reference group.
Allegation: Children placed out-of-home for physical/emotional abuse, in contrast to their counterparts
placed out of home for neglect, are less likely to be in the group where neither parent was interviewed
than the reference group. An opposite story holds for children placed for substance abuse infants:
Substance abuse infants are more likely to be in the groups other than the reference group. The
allegation reason Sexual Abuse did not differ from the reason Neglect in differentiating between the
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
43
interviewee groups. Finally, children with no prior indication of maltreatment, in contrast to their
counterparts placed out-of-home for neglect, were more likely to be in the group where neither parent
was interviewed.
Table 6. Factors Associated with Interviewing Neither, One, or Both Parents
Variable (Reference group)
Age (0)
1–5
6–13
14–20
Race (White)
Black
Hispanic
Others
Region (Cook)
Northern
Central
Southern
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
Interviewed
(vs. Both parents)
Odds Ratio
Lower
Odds
Ratio
95% CI
Upper
95% CI
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
1.38
1.33
0.89
2.38
1.83
1.63
3.38
1.69
3.80
1.00
1.16
0.73
1.76
1.59
1.35
2.41
1.42
3.09
1.89
1.53
1.09
3.24
2.11
1.98
4.75
2.02
4.68
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
1.59
1.59
1.59
1.14
1.31
1.83
1.78
1.18
1.32
1.28
2.01
2.31
0.74
1.06
1.40
1.08
0.87
0.87
1.96
2.49
3.10
1.74
1.62
2.38
2.95
1.60
1.10
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
0.84
1.14
0.76
0.55
0.49
0.19
0.70
0.83
0.34
0.61
0.97
0.63
0.42
0.42
0.16
0.51
0.70
0.27
1.14
1.33
0.91
0.73
0.57
0.24
0.97
0.98
0.42
44
(reference group in parentheses)
Placement (HMR)
Non-relative foster care
Residential care
Juvenile Detention, Runaway, or
Hospitalization
Independent settings, Home of
parents, all other settings
Allegation
(Substantial risk of harm)
Physical/emotional abuse
Sexual abuse
Substance-exposed infant
No prior indication
Interviewed
(vs. Both parents)
Odds Ratio
Lower
Odds
Ratio
95% CI
Upper
95% CI
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
1.17
1.12
1.41
1.25
1.38
1.52
0.95
1.01
1.22
0.88
1.14
1.23
1.45
1.29
1.63
1.76
1.67
1.89
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
0.93
1.61
1.55
0.61
1.31
1.22
1.43
1.98
1.98
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
0.66
0.67
0.39
0.37
0.51
0.24
1.16
0.88
0.62
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
Father alone
Mother alone
Neither
0.81
0.87
0.49
0.87
0.81
0.77
2.78
1.30
2.90
1.09
1.18
1.43
0.59
0.77
0.39
0.53
0.61
0.54
1.86
1.03
2.26
0.78
0.99
1.17
1.12
1.01
0.62
1.44
1.06
1.10
4.14
1.63
3.73
1.52
1.40
1.76
Bold text indicates significance at p < 0.05
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
45
Appendix B: Comparison of IA
and SP Recommendations
Table 7. Comparing Recommendations Made for Fathers in IA Reports and Service Plans (SP)
Substance Abuse
Education
Therapy
Type of Recommendation
Individual therapy
Family therapy
Couples therapy
Psych Eval
Domestic Violence
Other therapy (Inpatient psych,
Sex abuse perp therapy, etc.)
Parenting Classes
Parent Support, 1-on-1
Continuing Ed (incl GED)
Anger Management
Other Adult Education
Monitor School Progress/Comply
with School Expectations
Substance Abuse Evaluation and
Recommendations
Substance Abuse In- or OutPatient Treatment
Substance Abuse Follow-up (AA,
Aftercare, Coaching, Sponsor,
etc.)
Toxicology Screening
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
Added to SP
Matched
Missing from SP
(not in IA)
5
0
1
5
3
(in both SP
and IA)
21
10
4
5
10
(in IA)
6
9
1
3
4
Total
32
19
6
13
17
3
2
2
7
7
0
0
4
4
13
1
0
4
2
10
4
1
1
4
30
5
1
9
10
1
0
1
2
7
15
3
25
2
8
0
10
6
15
3
4
1
3
10
22
46
Visitation
Added to SP
Matched
Missing from SP
6
0
32
2
9
2
47
4
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
3
1
0
4
31
8
30
0
0
1
3
0
0
34
8
31
6
0
3
9
0
2
2
4
1
1
0
0
3
1
2
3
0
5
0
0
0
5
2
2
3
3
5
10
1
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
1
0
1
Secure Income/Employment
Pay Bills
Job Training
16
1
0
4
0
1
0
0
1
20
1
2
Secure Other Finances (Public
Assistance, WIC, etc.)
0
0
1
1
Supervised Visitation
Unsupervised Visitation
Use Positive Parenting Skills at
Visitation
Must be Sober at Visitation
Finances &
Employment
Health
Further
Assessment
Communication
Visitation Other (Phone contact,
written contact, etc.)
Communicate with
Agency/Caseworker
Provide Documentation
Sign Release
Communicate with Service
Providers
Communication with Family
Members/Attend Family Team
Meeting
Developmental Screening
Sex Abuse Assessment
Paternity Test
Criminal Background
Participate in IA
Routine Medical Care (CHE, Well
visits, Vision, Hearing, etc.)
Follow-up Medical Care (Ongoing
care for specific diagnosis,
Specialty care, etc.)
Immunizations
Dental
Medication (Given Rx, Monitor
meds, etc.)
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
47
Housing
Cultural
Legal
SelfImprovement
Added to SP
11
Matched
5
Missing from SP
1
17
11
1
0
12
2
0
0
2
Bilingual (Materials & Providers)
0
2
0
2
Cultural Competency (Needs
bicultural or culturally
competent providers)
0
1
1
2
Comply with Probation Terms and
Requirements
Follow Criminal Court Orders
Present to Court
5
2
1
1
5
0
0
1
0
6
8
1
Self-Improvement (“accept
responsibility for behavior,”
“lose weight,” “behave ageappropriately,” “refrain from
threatening behavior,” etc.)
8
0
1
9
Secure/Maintain Stable Housing
Maintain Appropriate
Environment (Clean, Safe, etc.)
Provide Structure, Routines, and
Refrain from Corporal
Punishment
The following recommendations were made only for children, mothers, or caregivers and are therefore not represented in this
table: Play therapy, Enroll in school/Evaluate school placement, Related services (Speech, OT, PT, etc.), Early childhood
program, Other child education, Other substance abuse (Seek related medical treatment, remain sober, etc.),
Bonding/attachment assessment, Independent life skills assessment, Create and maintain budget, Comply with rules at home,
Provide for basic needs (Clothing, Food, Own bed, etc.), Day care, Supervision at home, Mentoring, Extracurricular activity,
Physical activity, Social activity, Volunteer opportunity, Foster parent licensure, Seek legal protection, and Respite services.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
48
Appendix C: Survival Analysis of
Reunification
Table 8. Survival Analysis of Reunification by Completion of Parent IA interviews
Variable (Reference group)
Age (0)
1 to 5
6 to 13
14 to 20
Region (Cook)
Northern
Central
Southern
Race (White)
African American
Hispanic
Other
Allegation
(Substantial risk of harm)
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
Substance exposed infant
No indicated allegation
Placement (HMR)
Nonrelative foster care
Residential
Juvenile Detention,
Hospitalization, Runaway
Other
Prior entry (None)
Prior foster care spell
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
Parameter
Estimate
Standard
Error
ChiSquare
Pr > ChiSq
Hazard
Ratio
0.29
0.41
0.16
0.06
0.06
0.08
23.28
45.88
4.06
<.0001
<.0001
0.0440
1.33
1.50
1.17
0.71
0.81
1.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
94.10
132.05
204.03
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
2.04
2.26
2.92
-0.17
0.05
-0.07
0.04
0.09
0.13
15.21
0.38
0.28
<.0001
0.5376
0.5961
0.84
1.05
0.94
0.23
-0.37
-0.38
-0.31
0.06
0.12
0.11
0.078
15.31
9.08
11.43
16.03
<.0001
0.0026
0.0007
<.0001
1.26
0.69
0.69
0.74
-0.16
-0.41
0.04
0.10
14.64
17.23
0.0001
<.0001
0.85
0.67
-0.46
0.61
0.11
0.09
17.98
46.93
<.0001
<.0001
0.63
1.83
-0.31
0.07
21.12
<.0001
0.74
49
Variable (Reference group)
Timeliness of IA completion
(Not completed in 45 days)
IA completed within 45 days
Parents interviewed
(Neither parent interviewed)
Both parents
Father only
Mother only
Parameter
Estimate
Standard
Error
ChiSquare
Pr > ChiSq
Hazard
Ratio
0.15
0.04
15.10
0.0001
1.16
1.16
0.90
0.89
0.08
0.11
0.08
194.25
63.04
112.23
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
3.21
2.45
2.43
Switching the reference groups confirms that the differences between cases in which both parents are
interviewed and cases in which only one parent is interviewed are statistically significant.
Parents interviewed
(Both parents interviewed)
Father only
Mother only
Neither parent
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
Parameter
Estimate
-0.27
-0.28
-1.16
Standard
Error
0.09
0.04
0.08
ChiSquare
9.66
43.53
194.25
Pr > ChiSq
0.002
<.0001
<.0001
Hazard
Ratio
0.76
0.76
0.31
50
About Chapin Hall
Established in 1985, Chapin Hall is an independent policy
research center whose mission is to build knowledge that
improves policies and programs for children and youth,
families, and their communities.
Chapin Hall’s areas of research include child maltreatment
prevention, child welfare systems and foster care, youth
justice, schools and their connections with social services
and community organizations, early childhood initiatives,
community change initiatives, workforce development,
out-of-school time initiatives, economic supports for
families, and child well-being indicators.
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
T: 773.256.5100 F: 773.753.5940
www.chapinhall.org